Thank you for the little reminder, Ikan. I am already familiar with the rules on Wikipedia itself, and I recon the rules to not be too different, but I'll take a quick read through it to be sure :) > Wauteurz (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of similarities but some important differences, as you'll see. Thanks again; glad to have you aboard! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wauteurz, perhaps you could specifically glance through our policies on Wikivoyage:What is an article?. I saw you wrote in the Hindeloopen article that it's not possible to sleep there and travellers would have to stay in Sneek. I'm not sure how you determined that, but perhaps you're under the impression that "sleep listings" can only be large hotels? As you'll see in the policy, any type of accommodation counts for the article criteria - as long as there's enough other content to fill an article, of course. There are plenty of places to sleep in Hindeloopen. The town's tourist information site is a good place to check. Another useful policy page is Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy, which gives some background information concerning the conversation we had about Drenthe. Keep in mind that dividing regions is not at all a goal in itself. Dutch tourists often visit "Drenthe" or "Zeeland" - including day trips to all corners of the province and beyond, due to the short distances. The more fine grained our structure is, the more clicks and articles visitors need to get a good impression of their options. If there is indeed too much information in the articles, an extra division (like South Limburg) is fine, but otherwise travellers are better served without extra layers.

One more quick request; it would be nice if you could use the listings format when listing sights, and if possible, include an address. Directions to the main attraction are required for an article to be lifted to usable status. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Julias, I'll read through the linked articles ASAP. I've tried finding hotels through Google Maps by right clicking on Hindeloopen, searching nearby for hotels. It initially didn't bring anything up. The Hindeloopen article however, is one I rushed a bit at the end. Searching for hotels now, I have found a hotel in Hindeloopen, so my initial searching wasn't that thorough.

As for the Geo. hierarchy, the reason I posted Talk:Roden#Why would anyone visit Roden? is because I wanted to know if the regions could be defined before I added content for the existing redlinks. I don't really like spending my time on something to have it merged with something else and start over. It was mostly my thrive for efficiency showing. So far, I've been meaning to revisit most my articles to do what was needed to lift them to usable, but as we both know, this hasn't come to be yet. I'm thankful for your additions to them, but to keep work off your hands, I'll do my best to make the pages as complete as I can.

Hi. I don't know how concrete your plans are to visit either of them, but I have (it may well be a decade ago already) been to Borkum, Langeoog, Spiekeroog and have made a day trip to Helgoland when I was younger. My personal preference is for the car-free islands (Borkum has cars on it), but that is of course your choice. As for getting in, Borkum has direct ferry service from Eemshaven in the Netherlands as well as Emden, but the ferry ports to reach the others are a bit awkward to get to by public transit (Norden-Norddeich being the one big exception [look for "Norddeich Mole" in schedules]). Intercity buses in Germany are certainly an option, if you can live with the reduced comfort, probably awkward connections from the Netherlands and the reduced comfort (seat pitch, possibility to move around) compared to a train. Booking early should go without saying, we are talking about the country that invented the term "Frühbucherrabatt", after all ;-). At any rate, whether your trip to those islands is now or a few years hence, it would be great if you could add a bit of your experiences to the articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Hobbitschuster. I most likely can't visit the islands before summer 2017, and I have no concrete plans to visit them either. The logic behind wanting to visit them is the vague idea in my head of wanting to visit all Frisian islands. When I do visit though, Wikivoyage will get to know everything I learnt about the region, just like the vacation to the Luxembourgian Grevenmacher district, which I'm going on today. -- Wauteurz (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Which one of those is the local spelling? Judging by it being a German (or possibly Luxemburgish) word, I would say the former. In that case, there is no reason to spell it with u instead of ü. At least if I understand policy correctly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The correct spelling in Luxembourgian is Mullerthal (without the U-Umlaut), the German spelling is Müllerthal (with U-Umlaut). The correct way of spelling therefore should be the Luxembourgian way, i.e. Mullerthal. The folders I've taken home from there use both the Luxembourgian and German version for English-written folders. Of the 19 related folders I've got, 7 list Müllerthal, and the other 12 list Mullerthal, even though the local spelling, i.e. Mullerthal should be used. This is why I keep on using both the U and Ü versions, even though I don't mean to.

In a nutshell: It should be Mullerthal as that is its name in Luxembourgish. -- Wauteurz (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure that you've seen by now, but since the folders list both options as viable (though in my opinion, Mullerthal is the only correct option), I ended up making Müllerthal a redirect to Mullerthal. I am convinced that this is the best option, seen the local spelling. -- Wauteurz (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. You probably couldn't have known it (I myself only found out when I switched on the extension), but I have an extension activated that tells me when the format of a phone number is "wrong" and it usually gives me "NOCC" (no country code) for a variety of reasons, one of them being that the country code is put in brackets. So therefore, please do not put the country code(s) in brackets for phone numbers. Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Heya Hobbit, I know 99% sure that this edit is what you're referring to. This was a quite hasty reaction of mine on one of your edits that I, for some reason, mistook. I saw that you had updated a listing for the Preshistoric Museum, and, seen it was an update in phone numbers, thought I'd give you a hand. In the process, however, something managed to not go right in my brain and I ended up doing the totally reverse. It wasn't my intend, it was only meant as an helpful assist, yet in the process, I only created more work.

Eitherway, I am aware of how phone numbers should be listed. I've seen several articles and listings I contributed get changed for it, and I do it automatically now. Again, sorry for the mess-up. -- Wauteurz (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wauteurz, and thanks for adding all this content! One detail: The practice in this guide is not to treat hotel star ratings as part of the hotel's name. Instead, where star ratings are meaningful, they could be included in the "content".

I noticed you undid my edit that removed the postal codes on the Remich page. I want to notice you that I applied the Wikivoyage standardized formats for address listings, which states that postal codes should not be listed, except for listings in the UK. Also, it is recommended not to include the city if it is the same as the page title. All these recommendations are clarified on Wikivoyage:Listings.

@Podrozniczek: I was not aware of that. Most of the pages I've made and edited here are for cities and their greater surroundings, so I just did it by default, as many listings I've made are around and not in the article's location. My apologies for undoing your edit and thank you for the heads up. -- Wauteurz (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I found out how much I liked making banners during the half-week last month in which I made as many banners for the Benelux as I could, and I figured I would take that a step further :) -- Wauteurz (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I was slightly bothered by Dutch destinations that told a reader no more than "This place exists". I've been planning for a while to finally plunge forward and up the quality of these articles, starting with the smallest articles. There's more to come! :D -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We now, however, have the somewhat paradoxical situation that some Dutch destinations have a better en-WV article than nl-WV. This is by no means a huge problem, but it might lead to Dutch speakers who aren't all that confident or competent with their English (and yes, those do exist) being less likely to contribute and ultimately a healthy community in other language varieties helps us at en-WV as we can translate articles or harvest listings. That said, I feel more comfortable at en-WV than de-WV so I understand if you don't want to spend all that much time writing basically the same stuff again in Dutch. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand the problem, and it is by no means the case that I've never translated my articles to Dutch. I may at some point take time to pick this back up, but to say the least, I'm not really bothered to do so. I'm more certain of my English skills than my skills in my native language, as is the general problem with my generation. Perhaps the two active users on nlWV that I know of (@De Wikischim, FredTC:) are also willing to translate some articles to Dutch. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Dank je wel! There are still some things that I'd like to add at some point, such as the icons for signs found in stations I mentioned on the talk page, but the article is just as well-off without those. I too am very happy with what the article has become :) -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Once you are done, please push the changes also back to en.wikipedia.org. I'd like to setup a bot later, to sync this automatically (from WP to WV), so your changes would be overwritten... Thanks! Andree.sk (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, I am not sure if it is all that useful to automatically transfer the changes from enWP to enWV for the simple reason that {{RouteBox}} gets called from the template as is. I won't have to tell you that this template used on Wikipedia is conflicting with our Template:Routebox. Also, I can't push back the changes. I will have to put in an edit request as the template on enWP is locked. I've already submitted an edit request. The template here needs some tending to though. For one, all instances of {{RouteBox}} should be transferred to {{Routebox entry}}, getting its links adapted in the process. While editing I've found that specific problem with Riyadh. There may be more or alike conflicts hidden in the other 160K bytes of the template. I'm not saying transferring the edits from enWP would be impossible, but I do think that it would be better to adapt the template for our own use and let it live its own life here, independent from its counterpart on enWP. Also, as a sidenote: Template:Rail-interchange should most likely be added to Category:Experimental templates until it is ready for proper usage ;) -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh.... oh... I thought that it will suffice to use raw WP templates for the rint stuff, and perhaps just find some black magic to convert the links (for the links to other point to wikipedia, or discard the links completely). But I didn't have time to look into it yet, so in fact there may be unsolvable issues like you are describing. In this case, it'd probably then best to just mass-import all the WP/rint templates, if it doesn't make sense to sync. Andree.sk (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Having done a quick scan through the template, I have only been able to find {{RouteBox}} as a template that gets called (> 450 times) but doesn't exist. I'm not sure if this conflicts with our Template:Routebox, but just to be sure, I think we might as well merge enWP's RouteBox into our Template:Routebox entry, since ours doesn't get used a lot either way and enWP's RouteBox lets us link somewhere (which isn't impossible in Routebox entry) and lets us use fonts if we so desire (which we currently cannot). The six usages of Routebox entry can be changed easily within a day and one can easily switch {{RouteBox}} for {{Routebox entry}} using nearly any word processing software. It'll save you from mass-importing and will make you able to use the bot to sync the templates after all (so long as the bot knows that {{RouteBox}} should be replaced with {{Routebox entry}} and is able to do so). -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I have switched most of "my pages" to {{station/sandbox}}, so that we can then easily (and almost outage-free) switch normal {{station}} later. The only left-out is Paris, where they have the stuff like rint|paris|m|2, which would be job for your new rint, I guess :) So anyway, you could perhaps do the same - and after most of the simple stuff is done, we can also go forward and switch {{rint}} for your version - and finish up. What do you say? I didn't see any real resistance in the pub... Andree.sk (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andree.sk: At this time, I'm quite busy with stuff at uni, and it will take two to three weeks for that to cool down to where I'll permit myself to come back and edit here. My RINT is done in the sense that everything that is in the current RINT has been switched over, and that documentation is done for every entry in the template. There are still lines and networks to add in the future, though, but I do not think that those are very urgent at this time. If you want to, you can move User:Wauteurz/RINT to {{Rail-interchange/sandbox}} in anticipation of replacing {{rint}}. I didn't notice any disapproval of the modified, new RINT either, so I'd say we're good to go. Again, I'd rather not do it myself as I'll most likely get sucked back into nitpicking minor issues with the template, which I can't really have happening when I have three large projects to finish and hand in in the first half of April. If you'd like me to, I could create a little project page for RINT, detailing how to edit the template, how to document those edits and what the goals are for RINT, so that the step to plunging forward on the template gets lowered somewhat for others if it is ought to be beneficial for new editors to come in. -- Wauteurz (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andree.sk: Done I've moved the new RINT to {{Rail-interchange/sandbox}}. Would you like me to also move RINT/doc over? RINT/item (for displaying outputs in RINT/doc) is an exact copy of {{Rail-interchange item}} and won't need moving, and RINT/box is what I've moved to {{RbE}} about a month ago, so that won't need moving either. For documentation's sake, I'm done with most work at uni, so I should be able to focus a lot more on finishing up new RINT again. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the crusade to move all uses of {{rint}} to your template, which also included some fun with {{station}}. Now it's +/- done, excluding paris (still). If you'd like to review my changes, be my guest :) Otherwise, I'll overwrite the main templates (now +- unused) with the /sandbox versions, and then also remove the references from /sandbox to non-/sandbox stuff... That way, noone should notice any broken pages (but you may have noticed that e.g. Arnhem or Amstelveen temporarily use the original rint stuff, because that's what's included from {{station/sandbox}}...).

I only have one note - we should consider decreasing the height of the icons, I'd say 1px or 2px from both top and bottom. Now it looks a bit too intrusive, and will probably look bad in the London articles... 19:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Clicking around RecentChanges a bit, I can happily congratulate at having done a great job! The height of the icon's isn't easily changed though. The icons are achieved through spans, which just wrap around the text Like so. The border, which doesn't always show as it is the background colour by default is already set to 2px, as a single pixel was too small in my opinion. Either way, the one thing I can do, would be to wrap the entire template in smalltext, Like so, which might actually be a good idea now that I think of it. You could throw smalltext around any RINT output at this time like so: <small>{{Rail-interchange/sandbox|paris|7bis}}</small> (gives Template:Rail-interchange/sandbox), so I'd encourage you to check if that is what you're looking for. There are, however, several instances where smalltext is used in RINT, but luckily those can be counted on a single hand. Again, congratulations on the work so far! -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the style above - I'd almost say that smalltext really matches the style better. I'll get back to the 1px vs 2px border later on, once I have other stuff done :) Andree.sk (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andree.sk: I cannot move the template from /sandbox to main, as the current RINT needs to be deleted first. I've already made an VfD. As soon as the current template is removed, the template can be moved. -- Wauteurz (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's all done now... thanks for the great work and good luck maintaining it! :-D See you around... Andree.sk (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are still some logo's that I made before I updated {{RbE}}, but those can be updated at any time. Either way, thank you, and very much likewise for your contributions to {{station}} :D -- Wauteurz (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list, yes. I should add to that that I am currently somewhat demotivated from editing here as I've got other projects and things in life going. This too is why I added {{Userdraft}}; so that others may find it in the future and add onto it. The idea behind Zuiderzee Works is moreso to give background information, which to my understanding is also the goal of its counterpart article, Delta Works. (The same line of thought applies to the Hollandse Waterlinie.)

Either way, is there a specific (set of) articles you want me to add onto about the Dutch masters? I would assume you would also want me to add some things about other Dutch artists such as Piet Mondriaan, Gerrit Rietveld, Hieronymus Bosch and so forth while I am at it? It fits in well with a study I've got my eyes on, so I'd be more than happy to write something about these topics. -- Wauteurz (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well it was Dutch art from a travel perspective, so in essence "Where you can you see it?, can you Buy reproductions etc? What locales inpsired them?" and so on. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about being demotivated. We all have too many projects on the go :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I've started an outline for De Stijl, which is one of the most notable Dutch artistic movements (aside from Golden Age art/Dutch Masters, of course). De Stijl is two-sided in that it is about both visual art and architecture, hence I'll list some buildings (theatres, cafés, mansions, et cetera) that were designed by some of the nine most prominent members of the movement, as well as several museums that have a high quantity of De Stijl works. It's a personal favourite of mine, so that should combat the demotivation somewhat. I'll see about the Dutch Masters/Golden Age painters once this article has come some way. Inputs and tips are always appreciated, should you have them :) -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know anything about art, but figured it was a topic worth having :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

sorry but this is not Wikipedia. Only articles about locations. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Traveler100: I see where you're coming from, but what exactly is wrong with this instance? Sure, Mondrian might be a person, but he is more known world-wide than the movement he belongs to. How are people supposed to find that article (De Stijl) and thereby more museums with similar works without a link using his name? -- Wauteurz (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Why stop at this one artist? Why not other artists, also royalty, historic military people, politicians, types of food, ... If people what to know about other topics then should go to Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Wauteurz is planning to write an art based travel topic... Hence the link. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning to write more, yes, but the one for De Stijl is large enough to have been in mainspace for over a month by now and at some later point I'll expand it more. The case, however, is that De Stijl, which the Mondrian redirect we're talking about was linking to, is as good as synonymous with Mondrian (and Rietveld to a lesser extend) to where I've seen English folders, including one of the Kröller-Muller Museum from 2014/15, introduce De Stijl as more or less 'Mondrian's style'. Surely there is a clausule for synonymous names, and if not, there definitely should be. Wauteurz (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)